U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

84–757ps 2003

REVIEW OF THE REPORT ON THE NATIONAL CEMETERY SYSTEM, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 613

OF THE VETERANS MILLENNIUM HEALTH CARE

AND BENEFITS ACT, PUBLIC LAW 106–117

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

OCTOBER 16, 2002

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Serial No. 107–44

(
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman

BOB STUMP, Arizona

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama

STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana

JACK QUINN, New York

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

HOWARD P. (BUCK) MCKEON, California

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

JEFF MILLER, Florida

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

LANE EVANS, Illinois

BOB FILNER, California

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas

RONNIE SHOWS, Mississippi

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California

PATRICK E. RYAN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

October 16, 2002

Page

Review of the Report on the National Cemetery System, from the Department

of Veterans Affairs, as Required by Section 613 of the Veterans Millennium

Health Care and Benefits Act, Public Law 106–117 ......................................... 1

OPENING STATEMENTS

Chairman Smith ...................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of Chairman Smith ........................................................ 27

Silvestre Reyes ......................................................................................................... 3

Prepared statement of Congressman Reyes ................................................... 29

Hon. Michael K. Simpson ........................................................................................ 4

Hon. Lane Evans ..................................................................................................... 4

Prepared statement of Congressman Evans .................................................. 30

Hon. Susan A. Davis ................................................................................................ 4

Prepared statement of Congresswoman Davis ............................................... 31

Hon. Tom Udall ....................................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement of Congressman Udall ................................................... 37

Hon. Jeff Miller ........................................................................................................ 5

Hon. Vic Snyder ....................................................................................................... 13

Hon. Ciro D. Rodriguez ........................................................................................... 18

Hon. Bob Filner, prepared statement of ................................................................ 32

Hon. Shelley Berkley, prepared statement of ........................................................ 36

Hon. Ander Crenshaw, prepared statement of ...................................................... 41

WITNESSES

Barile, Vincent L., Deputy Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs, Department

of Veterans Affairs, accompanied by Daniel Tucker, Director, Office of Finance and Planning, National Cemetery Administration, Department of

Veterans Affairs ................................................................................................... 13

Prepared statement of Mr. Barile ................................................................... 87

Jones, Richard, National Legislative Director, AMVETS .................................... 22

Prepared statement of Mr. Jones .................................................................... 94

Moore, William B., Pd.D., Vice President for Infrastructure Management,

Logistics Management Institute, accompanied by Ronald W. Lind, Program

Director, Organizational Improvement, Logistics Management Institute;

and Donald C. Prettol, Research Fellow, Logistics Management Institute .... 5

Prepared statement of Mr. Moore, with attachment ..................................... 42

Lind, Ronald W., Program Director, Organizational Improvement, Logistics

Management Institute ......................................................................................... 7

Prepared statement of Mr. Lind, with attachment ........................................ 65

Prettol, Donald C., Research Fellow, Logistics Management Institute .............. 8

Prepared statement of Mr. Prettol, with attachment .................................... 74

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Statement:

The American Legion ....................................................................................... 100

Written committee questions and their responses:

Chairman Smith to Department of Veterans Affairs .................................... 103

Congressman Evans to Department of Veterans Affairs .............................. 106

Congressman Udall to Department of Veterans Affairs ............................... 109

Congressman Simpson to Department of Veterans Affairs .......................... 111
Page

IV

Written committee questions and their responses—Continued

Chairman Smith to AMVETS .......................................................................... 121
(1)

REVIEW OF THE REPORT ON THE NATIONAL

CEMETERY SYSTEM, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 613 OF THE VETERANS

MILLENNIUM HEALTH CARE AND BENEFITS

ACT, PUBLIC LAW 106–117

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:05 p.m., in room 334,

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Smith, Simpson, Miller, Boozman,

Evans, Reyes, Snyder, Rodriguez, Udall and Davis.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SMITH

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order, and I want to

apologize for being a little bit late. I was down the hall actually

meeting with some of the widows from 9/11 who have an ongoing

end of game problem of getting that 9/11 inspection or blue ribbon

panel together. So we have been working on that issue. Again, I

apologize for being late. This hearing, as you know, is on veterans’

cemeteries, and I want to thank everyone for coming here today.

I want to welcome our distinguished witnesses, Dr. William

Moore, Mr. Ronald Lind, Mr. Donald Prettol from Logistics Management Institute, and VA Under Secretary Vincent Barile, and

Mr. Richard Jones, who will be testifying today.

In July of 1862, Congress enacted legislation authorizing the

President to purchase, quote, ‘‘cemetery grounds to be used as national cemeteries for soldiers who shall have died in the service of

their country.’’ That year, 14 cemeteries were established. To understand the importance of this action, we can recall the words spoken so eloquently by Abraham Lincoln at the dedication of the national cemetery at Gettysburg, when he said, ‘‘We cannot dedicate,

we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave

men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated far

above our poor power to add or detract.’’

Today there are 120 national cemeteries in 39 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Thirty-three of these cemeteries

are closed to new interments; 26 can accommodate only cremated

remains and family members of those already interred, and 61, or

roughly half, are open to all interments. In all, VA maintains 2.4
2

million gravesites. The number of interments in VA national cemeteries has increased from 36,400 in 1973 to 84,800 in 2001, and the

number of cremations has increased to more than 34 percent of

total interments for the last 2 years.

Today’s hearing will give us an opportunity to hear about the

independent study that was mandated by section 613 of the Veterans Millennium Health Care Benefits Act of 1999. This law required VA to contract for an assessment for the current and future

burial needs of our Nation’s veterans. Logistics Management Institute was awarded the study by the VA. Volume 1 of the study entitled Future Burial Needs reviews current and future burial needs

of veterans and identifies areas of the country where new national

cemeteries might be constructed. According to existing VA planning

guidelines, VA should establish cemeteries as needed to provide

service to 90 percent of veterans within 75 miles of their homes.

The report projects burial needs in 5-year increments to the year

2020 and discusses the costs of establishing a new cemetery.

Volume 2, titled National Shrine Commitment, gives an evaluation of the current maintenance and construction work NCA needs

to bring these cemeteries up to standard. This report documents

the existing conditions at each cemetery, evaluates and makes recommendations on the number of one-time repair projects for improving the condition, function or appearance of each cemetery. It

estimates the total costs of these projects at $279 million.

Volume 3, titled Cemetery Standards of Appearance, provides a

detailed review of steps the NCA must take to establish and preserve our cemeteries as national shrines. This was a collaborative

effort involving cemetery directors and veterans’ service organizations to establish standards of excellence for the appearance of national cemeteries.

This report prepared by LMI is the third such report on veteran

cemetery requirements in the past 15 years. The first study was

presented to Congress in 1987, and the second study was completed

in 1994.

What we want to hear today are recommendations to help this

committee and the VA to set a course for the future of the National

Cemetery Administration. In the past 5 years, 5 new national

cemeteries have been opened, and an additional 6 cemeteries are

in various stages of construction. But in planning this expansion,

it appears that the significant maintenance needs of the existing

cemeteries have been overlooked. While meeting the ever-increasing demands for burials that are expected to peak in 2008, it is an

important goal that should not come at the cost of maintaining existing cemeteries to high standards.

I expect that at the appropriate time Members will want to discuss the needs of their own constituencies and States. I know that

my own home State of New Jersey is among the most densely populated in the country and the home to over 600,000 veterans. I

would like to explore VA’s decision to brush aside my veterans’

need for a national cemetery to accommodate future burials.

Today the national cemetery at Beverly, which was once in my

district, is basically closed for in-ground burials, yet the study says

this cemetery will serve all the needs of the veterans in the Philadelphia-Trenton area until 2010. I have been there. That is simply
3

not the case. My question is how will we do it? The only in-ground

burial option for the families of veterans living in New Jersey is

the Brigadier General William C. Doyle State Veterans Cemetery

in Arneytown. While some families outside of Central New Jersey

do opt to bury their family members here, it is hardly convenient

for the majority of families of veterans in the State of New Jersey.

I intend to pursue this a little bit later in my questioning, and perhaps our distinguished witnesses can respond to that.

We are pleased that we were able to facilitate a substantial in- crease of $25 million in NCA’s budget for the past 2 years; however, this study provides compelling data for a decision to provide

even more resources in the future.

How we honor our Nation’s veterans is a reflection of how much

we value their service and their role in preserving our freedoms.

I speak for all members of this committee, on both sides of the

aisle, when I say we are dedicated to ensuring that the men and

women who have served their Nation honorably will have a final

resting place in a veterans cemetery if they so desire. Families of

those buried in national cemeteries expect that we will maintain

these graves to high standards. Future generations will mark our

response to the challenges which this study presents and the challenges—and the duty it puts upon us to act.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith appears on p. 27.]

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask if my distinguished colleagues

might have—Mr. Reyes, if you have an opening comment.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SILVESTRE REYES

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a brief statement.

I want to thank you and our Ranking Member Mr. Evans for

your leadership over the course of this legislative session, and

thank you specifically for holding this hearing here today. Veterans’ cemeteries should provide a peaceful and dignified setting to

honor the many men and women who bravely served this country

in uniform.

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before us today, and

I look forward to hearing their testimony. I am particularly interested in being provided more information about the factors that the

VA considered in developing the future burial needs. I am concerned that because the future burial needs assessment was issued

prior to the 2000 census data being made available, the census was

not taken into consideration, and the VA may not have identified

population shifts, particularly in some of the Southern States, including some of the areas in my own State of Texas.

I am interested in hearing from the VA about the strategy to address the maintenance and the repair needs throughout the National Cemetery System, including the budgetary impact such as

the commitment to these maintenance costs would require. It is

one thing, I think, to make plans, and quite another to follow

through on the plans that we have made. To truly honor our Nation’s veterans, VA must do both exceptionally well, and from my

perspective, I think we expect nothing less from the Department of

Veterans Affairs.

Finally, I look forward to hearing the Independent Budget’s assessment of the VA’s report on the National Cemetery System.
4

And, Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just wanted to—I have talked to

a number of Members about the evaluation that is ongoing on some

of our national cemeteries, specifically in my area, an attempt to

zeroscape the cemetery, do away with the grass, which really has

impacted our veteran community. So I am looking forward to this

hearing, and I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Reyes.

[The prepared statement of Congressman Reyes appears on p.

29.]

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Simpson.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t really have an

opening statement except to say that I haven’t had the opportunity

yet to read the three reports, although they are on my reading list,

and I will get to them shortly. Our subcommittee will be holding

follow-up hearings on this, and I appreciate the comments of our

Ranking Member Mr. Reyes. It is an important hearing. I am glad

that you scheduled it today.

And let me say in advance that I have to leave early, and I apologize for that. I had looked forward to hearing this testimony, but

I do have some post-hearing questions that I would like to submit

at the appropriate time.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be made a part of

the record.

(See p. 111.)

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Evans.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LANE EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this hearing

this afternoon. I don’t normally have to apologize for not being here

because of the bad weather we have outside and planes are delayed

and so forth, so we appreciate you being here.

One thing that is not directly on point but I wanted to mention

because I think it shows the caliber of persons that we have on this

committee, when he was the first new member, he took me down

to the Korean Veterans Memorial after hearing complaints from

veterans that that memorial was run down after only about 2 years

or so into its existence, and you have turned that around, Sergeant

Reyes, and we appreciate it very much. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter my remarks in

the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, your remarks will be in the

record.

[The prepared statement of Congressman Evans appears on p.

30.]

The CHAIRMAN. Would any other members of the committee like

to be heard?

Mrs. Davis.

Mrs. DAVIS. I might say there is great interest in this issue in

San Diego. I happen to represent Rosecrans National Cemetery,

and there we have no more in-ground burials. We have tried to

come up with some creative ways of addressing this issue, and I

welcome the testimony today. And thank you very much for the

hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mrs. Davis.
5

[The prepared statement of Congresswoman Davis appears on p.

31.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Udall?

Mr. UDALL. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. We have similar needs

in Santa Fe with our Santa Fe National Cemetery closing in 2012,

and apparently there isn’t a nearby cemetery even opening up projected in these reports until 2015. And there are 84,000 people that

are needed to be served, and you have this 3-year period and then

not being served. So that is something that I am interested in talking to each of the panels. I also have several questions to submit

if I am unable to be here through all of these panels, and thank

you, Mr. Chairman, again.

(See p. 109.)

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Jeff.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, my district

hosts five military bases and one of the largest concentrations of

veterans in the country. And I would say that cemeteries, like

other services for our veterans, are high priorities for my constituents, and these men and women who have committed years to the

military and continue to participate in their community after their

formal service has concluded, they prefer to be buried in a community that has become their home and the home of their wives, their

husbands, their children and grandchildren.

I realize my district is not the only district that feels the need

for more and more land for cemeteries, infrastructure improvements to existing cemeteries, or other maintenance needs, but, Mr.

Chairman, it is these needs that place me on this committee. It is

the care and attention I believe our veterans deserve that has focused my time and attention to these matters.

In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to listen to the panel that

has assembled here today because it is a most important endeavor

that we undertake today.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

I want to welcome our very distinguished witnesses. Dr. Moore,

if you would begin. Just a note that Dr. Moore graduated from

West Point in 1974 and has got his Ph.D. at the University of

Maryland in 1989, a very impressive re ́sume ́. I would note that assisted in establishing the Commission on Base Closure and Defense

Conversion. We won’t hold that against you. But it was a very

worthwhile exercise and needed.

And your two distinguished associates, if you wouldn’t mind introducing them as well, and please proceed.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. MOORE, Ph.D., VICE PRESIDENT

FOR INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT, LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, ACCOMPANIED BY RONALD W. LIND, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, ORGANIZATIONAL IMPROVEMENT, LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE; AND DONALD C. PRETTOL,

RESEARCH FELLOW, LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

Mr. MOORE. Chairman Smith and distinguished members of The

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, LMI welcomes the opportunity to

give the committee an overview of our study on veteran cemeteries.
6

I am Dr. Bill Moore. I am LMI’s vice president for infrastructure

management and the corporate officer responsible for this work.

With me today are Mr. Ron Lind, the program director responsible

for the study, and Mr. Don Prettol, our project leader for the effort.

In 1999, VA cemeteries had 2.3 million graves, more than 6,000

developed acres, 600 buildings and other infrastructure such as

roads, walks, electrical systems and monuments. Because the mortality rate of World War II and Korean War veterans was increasing, as was the utilization of the burial space by Vietnam war veterans, annual interments have increased from 58,400 in 1989 to

77,680 in 1999, a trend that will continue for the next decade.

We did the study to assist the National Cemetery Administration

of the Department of Veterans Affairs with maintaining and improving all cemeteries under its jurisdiction in a manner befitting

their status as national shrines. In the study we did three things:

review the current and future burial needs, evaluate the maintenance required at the cemeteries, and recommended cemeteries’ standards of appearance.

I will describe our evaluation of the maintenance needs, Mr. Lind

will discuss our analysis of future burial needs, and Mr. Prettol

will review our recommendations for cemetery standards of

appearance.

As the first step in our evaluation of maintenance requirements,

we asked the NCA cemetery directors to answer a Web-based survey questionnaire. These preliminary questions were about cemeteries, their inventories of buildings, burial sections and infrastructure. We then transformed the directors’ responses to a database

which was the primary source for the site-specific data and helped

us identify potential problems.

A field survey of professionals, including landscape architects,

civil engineers and architects, did the on-site assessment and data

collection for this project. During site visits members of the team

interviewed the directors, discussing specific details noted on the

preliminary survey and gaining additional insight into specific

concerns.

The field survey teams used a checklist specifically created for

this project and approved by the National Cemetery Administration

to assess and document existing conditions at each cemetery. The

field effort consisted of visually assessing each location, using digital photography to document the problems, completing survey

checklists to capture all elements in the electronic database. We

then used that database to generate a comprehensive report about

the condition of each cemetery.

With problems and deficiencies clearly identified, we recommended one-time repair projects, assigning a ranking in priority

to each project. For each project we assessed the scope of the work

for correcting the deficiencies, evaluated the overall effect of the

project on the problem category and cyclical maintenance operations, and estimated the costs. The detailed results of our analyses are in our report, which we have summarized in Exhibit 1,

which is included and also contains the results of a review for a

sample cemetery.

I would point to the exhibit that accompanies my testimony

today. The first table shows the summary of the results. There are
7

two columns displayed. The first has the regionally adjusted costs

for each memorial service network. The second column has the

number of projects. I would mention that those projects are not individually discrete. There can be aggregations of types of work in

represented in each project.

The next 15 pages show an illustrative cemetery. We picked this

location not because it was particularly good or bad, it was a good

example of the types of issues that we found in many cemeteries.

And with the Chairman’s permission, I will show you a few slides

very quickly that are illustrative of the types of problems.

This is a particular cemetery, but these things were found in

many locations, so it gives you some sense of what we saw. The

gravestones misaligned and tilted as a result of sinkage over time.

Same issue here. Again, another look, you can see in the well-maintained cemeteries these tended to be very much aligned, and the

staining and general appearance was kept up through typical

maintenance. Road structures in and around the cemetery. Drainage structures. Standing water, again from drainage issues. Maintenance of facilities, in this case roof structures and gutters. As you

can see in some of these, and we will show in the next couple of

slides, these are historic structures, and, of course, maintenance to

those structures were in some cases were below standards.

I will be followed by Mr. Lind, who will discuss the forecasting

of burial requirements.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore, with attachment, appears

on p. 42.]

Mr. LIND. Chairman Smith and distinguished Members, in response to Public Law 106–117, the Veterans Millennium Health

Care and Benefits Act of 1999, LMI was contracted to provide analytical support to the National Cemetery Administration. Under

the provisions of the act, we have examined providing a burial option for 90 percent of the veterans residing within a 75-mile service

area of an open national or State cemetery.

Our report contains the following data for the 90 percent service

objective: The number of additional cemeteries required in 5-year

intervals beginning in 2005 and extending to 2020; for each 5-year

period, the areas of the United States with the greatest concentrations of veterans whose needs are not served by national cemeteries or State veteran cemeteries.

From our analysis, we conclude that 31 additional veterans’

cemeteries will be required over the next 20 years so the 90 percent

of veterans will have a burial option in each of those periods. On

the basis of our analysis, we recommend the locations of those 31

new cemeteries, which we have highlighted in the tables in Exhibit

1 for each of the 5-year periods.

We recommended the following for VA to achieve the 90 percent

service objective: One, continue to encourage State grant program

cemeteries as a means of serving veterans. Two, continue to examine ways of expanding the useful life of existing cemeteries, thereby

avoiding closure and loss of service. And third, build new national

cemeteries at or near the locations we recommend if neither of the

previous options is possible.

Let me just take a minute and take you through the data that

is in the exhibits. This is a summary of each of the 5-year periods.
8

These are the locations that we recommend for future cemeteries.

If you notice at the top of the 2005 table, the cumulative percentage on the baseline is 81 percent, so in the year 2005, with the

cemeteries that are still to be built until that period of time, there

will be 81 percent coverage under the 90 percent rule. So we need

to pick up about 10 percent of coverage to get to the 90. And what

we have done is we found the locations by the largest coverage,

first one Birmingham, Alabama, that population gained is the additional number of vets within 75 miles of that location that would

now have coverage that didn’t previously have coverage. And you

can see that then runs a cumulative percentage up to 82 percent,

so an increase of about 1 percent. We did that in decreasing order,

so the size of the coverage with each additional cemetery increases

until we reach the 90 percent, which is at the bottom of the table.

That took 18 locations in 2005.

As we start the next look at 5 years later for 2010—shift to page

2 now of the exhibit. Now, during that period some cemeteries have

closed, so the coverage dropped from the 90 percent. You see it is

back down to 87 percent as the start point. So, again, the same

methodology, largest first, and go down until you reach 90 percent

again, and you can see it took four more locations to reach the 90

percent.

The same methodology applies for 2015 and 2020, for a total of

31 locations, this is true if—none of the current cemeteries that are

planned for closing are extended in terms of their life or other

State cemeteries are not added. Those would offset some subset of

this set of 31 additional cemeteries.

With that, I would turn it over to Mr. Don Prettol.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lind, with attachment, appears

on p. 65.]

Mr. PRETTOL. As cemeteries that are clearly military in nature,

the 119 national cemeteries belonging to the NCA, are individually

and collectively, national shrines to those who offered their lives in

defense of their country. The finest cemeteries in the world vary in

certain common visual characteristics. Although there is some variation, we developed a broad set of standards. NCA can feasibly use

this set of cemetery standards of appearance throughout its system.

We recommended that NCA consider a set of 121 standards taken

from these world-class cemeteries. The standards we recommended

can be adjusted to accommodate differences in geography, types of

markers, ground cover and burial activity without making them

overly complex or convoluted.

The standards of appearance we propose fall into two categories,

maintenance and burial operations. These standards apply to all

cemeteries, whether active or closed. The standards are for

headstones, turf, other ground cover, horticulture, facilities, floral

tributes, neatness, personnel and security. The burial operation

standards minimize the negative effect of operations on families

and visitors without unduly detracting from their efficiency. The

standards are for interments and inurnments, committal shelters

and equipment.

With respect to using flat grave markers, we recommend using

three determinative criteria, geophysical conditions, climate and
9

other conditions, when evaluating requests from the field for using

flat grave markers in exception to Public-Law.

Establishing the standards of appearance we recommend, and

implementing the use of these standards in one of the ways we

suggest, will certainly and predictably improve the appearance of

NCA’s cemeteries. Following our guidance about the requests for

exception to the grave marker statute will help the review of cemeteries to proceed in a more smooth and effective manner. That concludes my statement.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Prettol, with attachment, appears on p. 74.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much for your testimony, and let

me thank LMI—all of you for a job very well done. This document

that you have presented to the committee and to the VA really

gives us a blueprint for action by the committee, by the subcommittee chaired so ably by Chairman Simpson, by our Senate counterparts, and hopefully going forward we will all do a better job, and

you certainly aided our work immeasurably.

Let me just ask a couple of brief questions. I noticed in your report that you make the point that $279 million is the maintenance

backlog; however, you suggested that some backlog is acceptable.

What are the numbers there? How much do you think really absolutely has to be done yesterday, so to speak, and where can we

stretch it out a little bit?

Mr. MOORE. As I mentioned in our report, a standard of 5 to 7

percent of the capitalization value of the facilities is—for this type

of thing we think is an appropriate standard. That would translate

into about a $60 million or $70 million backlog that you would expect to see as kind of a steady backlog as projects get added to it.

That is vis-a ́-vis the 279 million that we have listed in the report

total.

The CHAIRMAN. I noticed and I will ask the VA this as well, and,

Mr. Lind, you may want to comment on this. Going back to July

29 to Secretary Principi, you recommended 31 new cemeteries.

There are three, as you know. The word back from the VA by way

of letter was that LMI overestimated the number by nine. You

probably are familiar with that. How would you respond to that in

terms of those numbers? I mean, it still brings us to 22, and we

are nowhere near that with the 3. But, I mean, the nine that they

say you have overestimated, has there has there been any give and

take?

Mr. LIND. I have no heads up on that, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We will give you the Secretary’s response to that,

and perhaps you can give us the benefit of the analysis. I looked

at the future burial needs—areas of need, the response by the VA,

and, frankly, was disappointed. There are at least 17 instances

where there is no anticipated actions or comments.

But, again, talking about Beverly, the talk there is that 2010

year needed, and you know the VA itself will tell you there are no

more in-ground burials at Beverly. What were your findings vis-a ́- vis Beverly, because, again, as I said in my opening comments, that

used to be in my district. It is full for all purposes. We are using

Arneytown. Matter of fact, my parents are buried at Arneytown.

My father was a combat veteran from World War II. It is a very
10

fine cemetery, very well kept by the State. It is one of those StateFederal cooperative agreements.

But New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the

Union, and we do have a serious problem with burial grounds, and

Beverly can’t handle it, and yet this says 2010. I mean, that gives

a false picture about the reality on the ground. Dr. Lind or Dr.

Moore.

Mr. PRETTOL. For the purposes of the study, we considered cremations and inurnments as the criteria for a cemetery being

opened. A change in this assumption will affect the results of the

analysis. We discussed changing this assumption but decided this

definition was appropriate to consider a cemetery open.

The CHAIRMAN. But the majority of burials or the final disposition of the remains continues to be in-ground burials. So it would

seem to me it does paint a false picture, and hopefully we can get

that rectified by the VA as well.

Let me just ask you your sense of the VA’s criteria that—75

miles, the distance being used, is that adequate these days? I

mean, we use highway miles, but there seems to me there should

be a differentiation between an urban area, suburban area and a

rural area. Is it still an adequate gauge or criteria, if you will?

Mr. PRETTOL. We have had some discussion internally at LMI

about taking a look at that. The conference report accompanying

the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act specified a

75-mile service area. It doesn’t seem unreasonable from the perspective that the military catchment areas for hospitals is 50 miles.

I think a 75-mile service area is reasonable. I also quote some statistics from the VA strategic plan that says they have done analysis which showed that 80 percent of the currently interred veterans

lived within a 75-mile radius. All of that led us to believe it was

probably reasonable.

The CHAIRMAN. What about the criteria of 170,000 veterans to be

the threshold? Did you look at that as well, or was that just outside

the scope?

Mr. LIND. That was not our assumption. We used the 90 percent

coverage as our standard. So it went deep enough to get to 90 percent, independent of the size of the population that any one of

those cemeteries picked up. And the 170,000, I think, would probably pick up a total of 6 or 7, as I recall, off of the 4 increments.

The CHAIRMAN. Of the 900 projects with a total cost of $280 million, can you provide the committee with a breakout of how that

money ought to be spent?

Mr. MOORE. It is in our final report. What we did is we gave a

prioritized list based on health and safety, and then going down

through other criteria, and then we ranked them by one-time needs

as well as reoccurring. That is for each cemetery that is in there.

The CHAIRMAN. I hope we have better luck and we get better

traction with our colleagues in the Senate. And this committee has

passed two bills on hospital and infrastructure repair. One of them

was for $550 million over 2 years, and another put out by Mr.

Moran, our distinguished Chairman of our health committee, specifically called for repairs to be made at specific sites throughout

the country. Regrettably, both of those are languishing over on the

Senate side, and I hope we don’t repeat that feat for these repairs.
11

Thank you for the blueprint. It is very, very helpful.

Mr. Evans.

Mr. EVANS. I am lucky. Due to a recent land acquisition at the

Rock Island cemetery in Quincy, Illinois, there is now under-capacity in my congressional district.

Also, as long as we are looking at these issues, sometimes when

you do something right, you don’t get a pat on the back. I appreciate the work that you do.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Evans. Chairman Simpson.

Mr. SIMPSON. Just one question. You recommended 31 new national cemeteries be built. You also said that the addition of State

cemeteries could reduce that amount. Did you take into consideration any additional new State cemeteries, or is that 31 national

cemeteries if no new State cemeteries are built?

Mr. MOORE. We made no assumptions about additional State

cemeteries.

Mr. SIMPSON. So if there are some new State cemeteries coming

on, it could reduce that requirement, and could that be the difference between what VA said was the nine overestimated?

Mr. MOORE. We have not looked at that issue, but it is possible.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Reyes.

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions. First one deals with whether or not your recommendations

about future national cemetery locations would change if it were

based on the 2000 census instead of the 1990 census data.

Mr. PRETTOL. I have to assume that it would change, but the

data was not available, and the committee had a deadline for the

report, so we used the best information we had at the time.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about that, because

10 years makes a big difference in terms of the population shift.

Is it feasible to do a supplemental study in terms of vis-a ́-vis 1990

versus 2000 census?

The CHAIRMAN. Very good question.

Mr. MOORE. Technically it is possible to do that. Most of the census products are available now, so I would say the quick answer

is probably yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Probably could be some weighting done.

Mr. REYES. The reason I mention that, just reducing it to Texas,

we know that Corpus Christi, Laredo, Brownsville, McLennan area

have seen a tremendous shift in population there, and yet the facilities for veterans are nonexistent down there. So this would be

a big step in the right direction for them.

The CHAIRMAN. Again, I think the gentleman has an excellent

point. I think we ought to ask the VA that question as well as to

whether or not a new study is needed. I mean, I know we have a

couple of gentlemen from the State of Florida who serve in this

committee, and there are many veterans from New Jersey who

eventually migrate to Florida and die there and then are potentially buried in a VA cemetery there.

So it is a very good question, and I think we should follow that

up with the VA, and they might want to take a shot at that answer

as well.

Mr. REYES. The other question I have, and this relates directly

to the cemetery in El Paso. We have a new director, and he was
12

putting forth a proposal to go from natural grass to zeroscaping.

Can you tell us what goes into that decisionmaking process? Is it

a decision that is made locally? Is it something that is being

pushed nationally? Do you have any idea?

Mr. MOORE. We don’t have any real expertise on that. We know

that—some of the factors that affect it in terms of the cost from a

maintenance standpoint, but we are not certain what the policy is

on that.

Mr. REYES. That is all I had, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very

much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Miller, gentleman from Florida.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, if you will excuse me, I have to go to

an intelligence hearing, so I wanted to apologize for having to

leave.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Could you restate what committee you are going to?

I do have a question. The Chairman was asking about the 75-mile

rule, and I may not have been paying attention. What was the answer? Is that adequate now? Do you see it is adequate?

Mr. MOORE. Our response to that is it, to us, appears to be reasonable based on our other work in other areas of health systems

and the like. There is a question about urban versus rural. Seventy-five miles isn’t the same in all locations, but it seems to be

a reasonable standard.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Davis.

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know in your introduction you mentioned bringing in architects,

engineers and a lot of the administrators to talk about the needs

that we have out there, and I am just wondering about the role of

some of the veterans’ organizations, and if you are able to go to

them, how much input do they provide, and do they have a different perspective; what are they asking for what; do they feel is

really needed?

Mr. PRETTOL. I can say that at the very outset of the project, we

met with most of the veterans’ organizations. They reviewed the

methodology. We also met with some of the local veterans’ organizations as we visited cemeteries as as part of the standards task.

As far as their opinions as to future burial needs, I do not have

any knowledge in that area.

Mrs. DAVIS. I know that the 75-mile rule is a major issue, and

as I raised Rosecrans in San Diego, and I believe we have the largest veteran population in the country there, that there is a cemetery in Riverside, but it is really quite far for people to go. And

there has been some talk of trying to work closer with that, but

there are also concerns about trying to find additional new sites in

San Diego that could be additional sites, and I am just wondering

what your thoughts are about that. I know that Secretary Principi

has visited San Diego on a number of occasions, and I think people

are averse to look at auxiliary kinds of cemeteries. Do you have

any input in particular to that?

Mr. PRETTOL. I really don’t. It has been so long since we actually

did the report that I can’t recall the analysis in that specific area.

I can go back and revisit that and send an answer to you.
13

Mrs. DAVIS. Great. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. Mr. Boozman.

Mr. BOOZMAN. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Snyder.

Mr. SNYDER. Just one question. I had occasion, I don’t know, 3

or 4 years ago to visit one of our overseas cemeteries. I think it was

outside of Bastogne, and it was a beautiful place, very well maintained. I met with the, I guess, superintendent, and he is the only

person I ever asked in my time in politics where I asked him, do

you have adequate funding, and he said, yes, we have everything

we need. Does your study at all involve the maintenance and those

kinds of issues about overseas cemeteries?

Mr. PRETTOL. We did go overseas. We have a list in the report

of all the cemeteries we visited. We looked at several American

Battle Monuments Commission cemeteries. They have different situation in that they are closed cemeteries. They are gorgeous, and

we recognize those as some of the finest in the world.

Mr. SNYDER. You did not see any problems with them?

Mr. PRETTOL. No.

Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?

I want to thank you again for your fine work and for being here

and for giving us the benefit of your thoughts and counsel, and we

appreciate it. We look forward to being in touch with you if we

have any additional questions from Members.

And I would like to welcome our second witness, Vincent L.

Barile, Deputy Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs. Mr. Barile

was appointed Deputy Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs on October 4 of 2002. In this role, Mr. Barile directs budget and planning, information systems, communications, human resources, administration, contracting, memorial programs, State cemetery

grants, operations and construction for 120 national cemeteries.

From 1990 until his appointment, Mr. Barile was the Deputy

Under Secretary for Management for the National Cemetery Administration. Prior to 1990, he was Director of the NCA Budget

and Planning, where he managed the annual budget, all NCA planning activities, plus other functions including emergency preparedness, energy conservation and safety programs. So if he doesn’t

know, nobody knows, what is going on within the VA cemetery

system.

He is a former commander in the Navy, a Navy veteran. He also

served in the Mediterranean and the Far East.

Thank you for being here, and please proceed.

STATEMENT OF VINCENT L. BARILE, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR MEMORIAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, ACCOMPANIED BY DANIEL TUCKER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

Mr. BARILE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank

you for the opportunity to testify today on the three reports that

the National Cemetery Administration (NCA) completed in response to the requirements of section 613 of the Veterans Millen-
14

nium Health Care and Benefits Act. With me today is Mr. Dan

Tucker, Director of NCA’s Office of Finance and Planning. And I

would like to submit my written testimony for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, your written testimony will be

made a part of the record.

Mr. BARILE. Section 613 of the act required us to contract for an

independent study to address several issues, including identifying

the one-time repair needs at each of our national cemeteries, the

feasibility of making standards of appearance of VA national cemeteries equal to the finest cemeteries in the world, and the identification of the number of additional cemeteries required to meet future burial needs of veterans.

Logistic Management Institute was selected as the independent

contractor for this study. The scope and objective of the study was

developed in consultation with professional staff members of both

the House and Senate Committees on Veterans’ Affairs, and with

representatives of the major veterans’ service organizations. In

order to easily present such a large amount of information, the results of the study were issued in three separate volumes. These reports serve as valuable tools for the Department by providing data

for use in our planning processes. I appreciate this opportunity to

explain how VA is using the information to meet its mission today

and in the future.

The Cemetery Standards of Appearance study addresses the feasibility of establishing standards of appearance for our national

cemeteries equal to those of the finest cemeteries in the world. The

study serves as an independent reference guide that will assist us

in ensuring that the overall appearance of each national cemetery

reflects the distinction of a national shrine.

NCA is using the report to evaluate and review its current standards. It is important to note that the report did not find a single

cemetery that qualified for the distinction of the finest cemetery in

the world on all elements of appearance.

The National Shrine Commitment report provides the first independent systemwide review of the condition of our cemeteries. NCA

is currently evaluating the 928 identified projects and developing

a strategy to address the report’s findings.

And finally, the report, entitled Future Burial Needs, provides an

assessment of the number of additional cemeteries that would be

required to provide service to 90 percent of veterans within 75

miles of a cemetery beginning in 2005 and projecting out to 2020.

In order to meet this required 90 percent service level, the report

identified 31 locations as those areas in the United States with the

greatest concentration of veterans whose burial needs are not

served by a national or State cemetery.

We acknowledge that there are a number of factors that could

impact travel to a national cemetery. Some of these are geographic,

and some reflect the challenges found in densely populated metropolitan areas. For this reason, accessibility to a potential site is

carefully considered when choosing a new cemetery’s location in

order to maximize access for veterans and their families.

VA determined that a veteran population threshold of 170,000

within a 75-mile service radius would be appropriate for the establishment of a new national cemetery. This is consistent with deci-
15

sions relating to the location of recently opened national

cemeteries.

Based on the threshold limit as well as the locations recommended by the report, VA would plan for three additional national cemeteries by 2020. This includes one in Sarasota County,

Florida, to ensure continued service delivery when the Bay Pines

National Cemetery closes due to the lack of additional land acquisition. The remaining two cemetery sites in Birmingham, Alabama,

and Columbia-Greenville, South Carolina, will provide a burial option in areas not currently served by any national or State veterans

cemetery within 75 miles.

We consider a cemetery open if it provides for the first interment

of casketed or cremated remains. A cemetery is considered closed

when there are no longer first interment options, even though burial operations continue with the interment of family members in already occupied graves. At the end of fiscal year 2002, 87 of our 120

cemeteries were open.

We recognize that cremation is not considered to be an acceptable burial choice for everyone; however, the choice of cremation

continues to increase in private as well as national cemeteries

across the country. For example, the Cremation Association of

North America projects that the national cremation rate will increase from its actual rate of 26 percent in 2000 to 49 percent in

2025. Some areas already exceed this national average. For fiscal

year 2002, NCA’s cremation rate was 37 percent for all interments

performed, and we project this number will increase consistent

with the national trend.

The State Cemetery Grants Program was established in 1978 to

complement VA’s network of national cemeteries. Grants may be

used only for the purpose of establishing, expanding or improving

veterans cemeteries that are owned and operated by the State. We

can now provide up to 100 percent of the development costs for an

approved project, but we do not provide funds for the land acquisition. We will continue to encourage States through this program to

expand already open veterans cemeteries as well as to establish

new State cemeteries in unserved areas.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral testimony. I will be

pleased to respond to any questions you or the committee members

may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barile appears on p. 87.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tucker, did you have anything you wanted

to add?

Mr. TUCKER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Couple of opening questions. What is NCA doing

to address the maintenance backlog that was detailed in LMI’s report? Dr. Moore testified a few moments ago that an acceptable

backlog will probably be in the realm of $60 million to $70 million.

That leaves, if we took that as a reasonable gap, about $210 million

that is not being addressed. When can we expect a budget submission to include the details and the requests for that kind of

funding?

Mr. BARILE. As you mentioned in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, we have had actually $15 million already appropriated

by Congress in support of the National Shrine Commitment. The
16

President’s budget request for fiscal year 2003 includes another $10 million, bringing a total of $25 million for the National Shrine commitment. That money in itself was addressing the visually prominent areas of concern at several of our cemeteries. That would

mean raising sunken grave sites, cleaning and realigning of

headstones.

We are evaluating the projects listed now in determining the

prioritization of need, and we will address those along with our 5-

year minor construction program as we develop the fiscal year 2004

submission as well as some of the projects already listed in our fiscal year 2003 submission.

The CHAIRMAN. I mentioned earlier to Dr. Moore and Mr. Lind

a question with regards to the letter I sent back in July, and we

had an exchange of letters between Secretary Principi and myself,

and if you didn’t draft that letter, you certainly had a hand in it.

And the response back was the recommendation was 31 new cemeteries. You pointed out, or the Secretary pointed out, that it was

overestimated—the need—by nine because of an expansion of existing cemeteries and the purchase of new areas to expand their capacity, but that still leaves 22, even if that analysis is correct, they

are not being adequately planned for.

Is there any—now using the report, LMI’s report, as a catalyst,

is there any new initiative perhaps under way to try and create additional cemeteries.

Mr. BARILE. If I may in the way of providing some background,

also in your opening testimony you referred to the two previous reports. In those two previous reports, we were to identify the 10

areas of greatest need in the country based on veteran population.

While each report indicated a list of 10 locations, the total number

of locations identified was 13. VA established national cemeteries

in 6 locations, is currently establishing an additional 6 national

cemeteries, and acquired land to keep an existing national cemetery open. And that finishes that list from the combined reports.

This report takes us beyond a number of 10, which makes it really unrealistic for the VA to grapple with this type of requirement.

What we are trying to do is work with the States, and that is the

purpose of the threshold. We are saying that 170,000 is a threshold. We have no plan at this point in time to address those locations below that threshold with the establishment of a national

cemetery. Therefore, the States should consider proceeding with

some plans and talk to the State legislatures about supporting a

State veterans cemetery.

The areas above the 170,000 threshold includes, as I mentioned

in my testimony, three new cemeteries, but it also includes the assumption which was part of the question by Chairman Simpson.

The fact is we have to keep open cemeteries open, so we are looking for land acquisition at at our cemeteries in Willamette, Oregon,

at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, and Jefferson Barracks in St.

Louis. So we have six cemeteries above that 170,000 that we are

working already based on this report.

The CHAIRMAN. Just, again, because I know it is of interest to

all the Members, the 170,000 threshold, perhaps it is a surface appeal to look at, but it appears to be arbitrary. Why not 150,000?

Why not 175,000? Could you detail what that is based on?
17

Mr. BARILE. What it is based on is an analysis of the veteran

populations—the two prior reports, the 1987 and the 1994 combined, had 13 sites identified. The lowest populations basically were

in Oklahoma City and Albany. They were around 170,000 veterans.

So we looked at that and said when we went down the list of the

future burial needs, you look at Sarasota County, which is 373,000;

Salem, Oregon, 267,000. It just came down to six cemeteries, if you

will, around the 170,000. I wouldn’t say it is arbitrary, but I would

say we figured six would be enough to deal with in the next coming

years.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just ask you with regards to the VA’s

original budget request to OMB for the fiscal year 2003 budget for

the maintenance of existing cemeteries. Did you ask for more than

you got from OMB?

Mr. BARILE. We always ask for more than we get. I didn’t bring

that figure with me.

The CHAIRMAN. Could you provide it, because I know you go

through the filter, as do all the agencies in government, but it

would be very helpful to this committee, knowing you are the man

on the job and you are sharp, to know where are the needs. Maintenance needs to be upgraded. We need to hurry up offense on that.

We can be helpful. We now have one blueprint out of my study,

and your recommendations will be very helpful. And that is not

going out of the line authority either, because you are being asked,

and we would like to know that if you could provide it.

(The information follows:)

VA’s original budget request to OMB for the fiscal year 2003 budget for

the maintenance of existing cemeteries.

The fiscal year 2003 budget request to the Office of Management and Budget for

the operations and maintenance appropriation for the National Cemetery Administration was $138,149,000. This excludes funds associated with the legislative proposal to have agencies pay for the full cost of the accrual of the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Programs.

Mr. BARILE. I would add although, as I said, we always ask for

more than we get, the amount we got was probably more generous

than some other elements both in the government and in the VA.

So we found it to be manageable.

The CHAIRMAN. Has Secretary Principi received his briefing on

NCA’s final standard of appearance mentioned in the cover letter

accompanying Volume 3? And what is being done on the appearance issue, since that is another area of great concern to the

committee?

Mr. BARILE. The Secretary was briefed. What we have done is we

have analyzed the recommendations. I believe, as the LMI expert

said, there were 121 elements to those. So what we are doing now

is in a sense reviewing them to see how applicable they are to our

operations and coming up with our final set of standards that will

then be transmitted within the next several weeks to all of our

field facilities to allow them to start to analyze their own individual

facilities and determine where they are as a baseline.

The CHAIRMAN. Can we get a copy of that, please?

Mr. BARILE. Yes, sir.

(The information follows:)
18

Copy of the final set of standards that will be transmitted within the next

several weeks of all field facilities.

The review of the National Cemetery Administration’s (NCA) final Standards of

Appearance is being completed. NCA compared the contractor’s recommended ‘‘finest in the world’’ standards to NCA’s standards, adding to NCA’s standards or modifying existing standards where appropriate. The standards will be provided to the

Committee when the Department completes its review.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you with regards to the Beverly National Cemetery. Again, I look at this future burial needs document, and it states rather categorically, Philadelphia-Trenton area

served by Beverly, served until 2010. How can that be since there

are no new in-ground burials occurring?

Mr. BARILE. I think in essence we have said that Brigadier General Doyle, which I might add for fiscal year 2002—I brought the

interment statistics—had 2,430 interments. And if you rank that— and I would like to point out that there is, with the change in the

funding for the State Cemetery Grants Program where VA can provide up to 100 percent, the States are actually a true complement,

and they meet the standards of a national cemetery—Brigadier

General Doyle would rank twelfth among our active cemeteries,

and so it is a widely used cemetery. And, as you indicated, it is a

very pleasant and serene cemetery.

The CHAIRMAN. No doubt but Beverly should not be on this list.

Mr. BARILE. As I said, we are using the definition of cremation— only cemeteries as open cemeteries and the 75-mile as a basis for

determining what the service areas are, and that is what LMI used

when they did their analysis.

Mr. EVANS. With the interest of time, I will yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Davis?

Mrs. DAVIS. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boozman?

Mr. BOOZMAN. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller?

Mr. MILLER. No.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I apologize. I just got off the plane. I didn’t put

a tie on.

Let me ask you, in San Antonio, we have a large area to the

south. I was concerned by the numbers that you have for the valley

in Cameron County and Hidalgo County and even Webb County.

It is the fastest growing region in the entire Nation. I was wondering, you know—and they were telling me that you were using the

1990 census?

Mr. BARILE. That is correct.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. When do you plan to plug in the actual

numbers?

Mr. BARILE. What we are planning to do is—and that goes to Mr.

Reyes’ question as well—we will update our planning tool when we

have the 2000 census data, and we are projecting the VA’s actuary

will project our veteran population demographics based on that,

and we expect this data sometime mid next year.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We have some counties down there. One of them

went from 50,000 to 200,000.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The other, Hidalgo, almost half a million people

and not to mention in Nueces County and these areas down there.
19

Mr. BARILE. The model, as I said, is a planning tool and it is only

as good as its currency; and we would plan to update it and to use

the relevant data.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The determination for a new burial site consider

proximity of the nearest site, does it. For example, the valley is

about 200 miles away from San Antonio, and that is the closest

cemetery that they have.

Mr. BARILE. The focal points are, in a sense, centers of population. Where we build then will depend on the site locations that

are available within that general area. Obviously, you can’t just

plop down a point in the middle of a central veteran population.

We try and locate a cemetery in an area where it is accessible and

the road system will support easy transportation to the cemetery

for visitation.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Regarding the San Antonio site, did consider

how it might be able to be expanded?

Mr. BARILE. We have been very lucky that the DOD has been cooperative with us, and we have had land acquisition from them. It

has been in small parcels, but parcels enough that we keep the

cemetery open.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay. I know—because you mentioned some projections would be expanded in the future, does that take into consideration, the expansion that took place just recently?

Mr. BARILE. Right.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Did you look where you might be able to get additional land.

Mr. BARILE. Yes.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I know the last plot came from the school

district.

Mr. BARILE. No, this is DOD land that we are looking at that

DOD is willing to transfer.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Is this additional land that we have already

taken?

Mr. BARILE. Yes, we are in the process of acquiring that.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay. Do you know where exactly?

Mr. BARILE. Not off the top, but we can provide that for you.

(The information follows:)

Location at DOD land that VA is looking at in order to expand the Fort

Sam Houston National Cemetery.

Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery, located in San Antonio, Texas, provided

3,470 interments of both casketed and cremated remains in fiscal year 2002. The

cemetery is projected to have available grave space until 2011. The National Cemetery Administration (NCA) is currently working with the Department of Army for

the transfer of two parcels of land. One is a 13-acre tract and the other is an estimated 150-acre tract. The 13-acres is surrounded by cemetery land, which was

transferred to VA from Army. A total of 39 acres was transferred in 1997. The 13-

acre tract was originally planned to be part of that transfer from the Army, but was

delayed due to the presence of a landfill, which has been cleaned up. The 150-acre

parcel is directly adjacent to the cemetery to the east. It is a tract of land that includes the old Army MAARS radio antennae station. NCA is planning a major construction project to upgrade the cemetery as well as develop a significant portion

of the land to be transferred. The additional land should provide burial capacity for

over 25 additional years.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay.

Going back again to the numbers, looking at if you are working

from the 1990 Census, Mr. Chairman, we may have a problem. You
20

know because a lot of things have transpired in the last decade. I

apologize if it was already brought up, but I mean, we get

bombarded down in the Valley, Congressman Ortiz and Congressman Hinojosa, part of it; it is not even in my area. But they don’t

have a cemetery. They are almost 200 miles away.

Mr. BARILE. As the LMI indicated, the reporting deadlines precluded us from waiting. That is why I said we will update the

model. We had to provide the reports within as reasonable amount

of time as Congress gave us.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And when do you update your direction, if that

has to change?

Mr. BARILE. About mid-next-year we will have the VA’s veteran

population model laid over the outyear projections for the census.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay.

Now, is it my understanding that when you do the census, they

identify who is a veteran and who is not?

Mr. BARILE. The census has some data and then we do veteran

population projections, and we work with DOD on veteran accessions and deaths, and so then we project out the future veteran

migration.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand Mrs. Davis has a question.

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

May I ask you just to comment on the question I asked earlier

about what I would call an auxiliary cemetery that is smaller,

cemeteries that are connected to a much larger—and again we are

talking about maintaining the standards of a national cemetery.

Are there some throughout the country, and could you give me just

your assessment of whether that is a good idea or not?

Mr. BARILE. It is not usually a good idea, because what we do

then if it is adjacent land, it is not an auxiliary site; it is an expansion of the existing cemetery. If you have to move equipment and

people over highways or roads 5, 10, 15 miles away, it becomes—

actually what you are doing is establishing a second cemetery in

that proximity, and that diverts our resources for the major metropolitan areas. Our primary goal is to keep service areas being

served; and we do everything we can to acquire adjacent land, as

we were just talking about, land from the Army.

We had in Oregon—our cemetery, Willamette, was scheduled to

close, and for years there was no willing seller. Just recently, we

were able to acquire the adjacent land to the cemetery, so we are

going to be able to keep that service area open. That is our goal.

Once we are in an area, we would like to keep the service to the

veterans and the community there as best we can. If we cannot,

then we turn to the State and say, we are going to close. If the population doesn’t support a national cemetery based on the threshold,

then you need to explore going to the State legislature and seeing

about getting some funding for a State veterans cemetery.

(Subsequently, the Department of Veterans Affairs provided the

following information:)

ADD NOTE

The National Cemetery Administration (NCA) acquired an additional 68 acres in

1990 that allowed the Willamette National Cemetery to remain open until 2015,
21

which is past the original projected closure date. NCA anticipates acquiring an additional 37 acres to further extend the service life of Willamette National Cemetery.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Davis.

And, Mr. Barile, let me ask you a question. And I think you will

probably need to get back to us on this one.

But it would be very helpful for us to gain a better understanding about the radius issue and the distance issue of 75 miles. What

percentage of veterans who take advantage of interment in any

given national cemetery lived within 40 miles and 50 miles?

Mr. BARILE. Oh, that—I will have to work a model up for you on

that. Those statistics are not readily available.

What we do know is that 80 percent do come from within 75

miles. And so that is why, when we worked with LMI, they said

they thought that was reasonable. We think it is reasonable. I

would acknowledge that you can find locations around the country

that are not realistic, but as a national measure, we find that to

be somewhat realistic.

I would offer the same thing for Calverton, NY, where people are

coming along the Long Island Expressway all the way out—beyond

75 miles to be buried at a national cemetery. People will come. But

what we try to do is put them in the locations that will best serve

and try and get them in that proximity.

(This information is on p. 22.)

The CHAIRMAN. And as quickly as possible, because I think it

would be very helpful in our oversight function, and hopefully

going forward, to figure out whether or not this figure, especially

given the rural/suburban break, because 75 miles isn’t 75 miles in

some places, as you just pointed out.

Mr. BARILE. Right. And I would think that then we would have

to go back and see how long LMI would take to run their model

based on the demographics that they have, and if we want to wait

for the population; so I am not sure, in a sense, how realistic we

could provide you with data as far as updates, but we can provide

you the current data.

The CHAIRMAN. You know, my sense—and I could be wrong—is

that with every succeeding 10 miles or so, there has got to be a

drop-off, especially when you get—I mean, 50 maybe is more reasonable, 40 is more reasonable. But when you get to 75, some people may say, I will go locally, especially when it comes to visitation.

You know, I visit my parents frequently at the Arneytown; for

me, it is not that far. But if I lived in North Jersey, if I lived in

Philadelphia, it would be a hike. And it would be a lot more difficult, particularly for an elderly person, the survivor, to make that

75-mile trek to remember their loved one.

So it is not just the day of interment I would be concerned about.

It would be the ongoing visitation of loved ones who are still very,

very far away in some cases.

Mr. BARILE. We will provide you that.

The CHAIRMAN. If you would provide that, that will be helpful.

Thank you.
22

(The information follows:)

What percentage of veterans who took advantage of interment in any

given national cemetery lived within 40 miles and 50 miles?

The National Cemetery Administration (NCA) currently collects information,

through its automated burial records database, on how many burials were performed for individuals whose address of record was within 75-miles of the national

cemetery. In order to be able to report data for multiple distances, as requested,

NCA is currently defining a sampling model that will be able to calculate the percentage of veterans whose address of records were located within 40 and 50 miles

of the national cemetery. Once this information is available, we will be able to share

it with the Committee. We hope to be able to have this information to the Committee by the end of November 2002.

The CHAIRMAN. We have three votes on the floor, I regret to say,

so we are going to have to take a short recess. But I would encourage members to come back. Richard Jones from AMVETS will be

giving the Independent Budget’s perspective, AMVETS and on behalf of the Independent Budgets.

Mr. BARILE. All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

[Recess.]

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to welcome our third panelist, Mr.

Richard Jones, the National Legislative Director of AMVETS, who

is here to give the Independent Budget’s assessment or the report.

And Mr. Jones is a good friend of the committee and has provided

many, many excellent insights over the years. It is good to have

him here.

And I apologize to you for this long delay between panels. There

were three votes on the floor and nothing I could do about. But still

it is an inconvenience to you, so I do apologize.

Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD JONES, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE

DIRECTOR, AMVETS

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and indeed we do understand the process of Congress and we thank you very much for

your service.

On behalf of the member organizations, Mr. Chairman, Ranking

Member Evans, the organizations of The Independent Budgets, including AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed

Veterans of America and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, we thank

you very much for this opportunity to come by and report on our

assessment of the study recently concluded by VA on improving

burial benefits and cemeteries.

I know that my statement is in the record, and I don’t believe

it is important for me to go over the statement, but I would like

to highlight two areas, understanding the time of the committee

and the nature of Congress.

Now, the first is in Volume 2, the national shrine commitment,

which provides a system-wide, comprehensive view of the conditions at VA national cemeteries. The study in Volume 2 identifies

over 900 projects for grave site renovation, repair, upgrade and

maintenance, and with a total estimated cost of completing these

projects of nearly $280 million, according to the study.
23

Now, a major part of the contributing factor of these project repair recommendations is the accumulation of uncorrected past deficiencies, in our estimation. Deferred maintenance, as any public facilities manager knows, results in continued deterioration of facilities and increasing costs related to necessary repairs. The Independent Budget Veterans’ Service Organizations agree with the assessment in Volume 2, and we recommend and urge Congress and

VA to work together to establish a timeline for funding these

projects based on the severity of the problems. We believe that a

timeline could help relieve this backlog and return us to a solid

track of regular maintenance expenditures.

I would also like to highlight one other volume of the report, Volume 3, Cemetery Standards of Appearance. We believe that is a

careful and a richly articulate presentation. VA examined closely

many of the elements that comprise what they call ‘‘the finest military cemeteries in the world’’; and indeed they have. They also

looked at Arlington National Cemetery, and these efforts are all

aimed at helping form a potential set of national standards which

would improve the appearance of NCA cemeteries and guide application of future resources.

Volume 3 also describes one of the most important elements of

veterans cemeteries, namely to honor the memory of America’s

brave men and women who have served in the Armed Forces. As

the report states, an important part of the purpose of veterans

cemeteries is to serve beyond a dignified burial of a veteran and

‘‘to serve a national purpose after the burials have ceased, even

long after the visits of families and loved ones.’’

The Independent Budget Veteran Service Organizations agree

with this assessment of the purpose of the cemeteries as national

shrines. Truly, many of the individual cemeteries within the system are steeped in history. And the monuments, markers, grounds

and related memorial tributes represent the very foundations of

these United States.

With this understanding, the grounds, including monuments and

individual sites of interment, represent a national treasure that deserves to be protected and nurtured. Unfortunately, despite NCA’s

continued high standards of service and despite a true need to protect and nurture this national treasure, the system continues to be

seriously challenged as these reports indicate.

The current and future needs of the National Cemetery Administration require continued but adequate funding to ensure that the

system remains a world-class, quality operation to honor veterans

and recognize their contributions and service to the Nation. When

the Independent Budget for fiscal year 2004 is published later this

year, we will recommend a budget consistent with NCA’s growing

demands and in concert with the respect due every man and

woman who wears the uniform of the United States of America.

The study on improvements to veterans cemeteries presents the

valuable information and tools for the development of a truly national veterans cemetery system. We recommend that you give it

your close attention, and we thank you for initiating the study in

the Millennium Act, and for this oversight hearing, which follows

on that process begun in the last Congress. We thank you.
24

Mr. Chairman, again we applaud the committee for holding the

hearing. We thank the committee for extending the opportunity to

present remarks on this important subject. We look forward to

working with the committee to strengthen, enhance and improve

the earned benefits of our Nation’s veterans and their families.

And this concludes my statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones appears on p. 94.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Jones.

Do any of the VSOs, as far as you know, make regular written

reports on the appearance at several of our veterans cemeteries.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I know that we receive reports from

the field from our members. And in receipt of those reports, we

write letters to the National Cemetery Administration. Most of

these letters are in regard to the repair and necessary alignment

of headstones, for example. But generally in regard to the appearance, that is the area where we receive most of our communication

from the field and where we translate that communication to the

Department of Veterans Affairs.

The CHAIRMAN. Has the NCA been responsive to your appeals?

Mr. JONES. They have, sir. And I think in large part the national

shrine movement, which was begun just a couple of years ago with

great intensity and enthusiasm by National Cemetery Administration, is part of that response.

The CHAIRMAN. You heard the discussion earlier that we had

about Dr. Moore’s recommendation that $60 to $70 million would

be an adequate or reasonable backlog as opposed to the 280—is

that the number, 280? What would, in your view, be a reasonable

backlog that you could say, well, we can’t get to it now, but—do you

have any—— Mr. JONES. I think Dr. Moore is in the ball park. The problem

we have is that that money has not been going to NCA. It has been

chipped off, of course, following the appropriations bills for other

activities at the Department of Veterans Affairs. We understand

that Department of Veterans Affairs letters are sent on a regular

basis to the members of the committees on appropriations—the ‘‘cardinals.’’ The cardinals receive these letters and allow transfers of funds

from NCA to other areas, for example, health care, where funds are

needed. There are shortfalls at NCA. And this area seems to be

nickeled and dimed on occasion, and the result is what we see in

this report, a backlog of 900 projects. Certainly, if we were able to

take care of those in backlog and return to a regular maintenance

schedule, $60 million a year for maintenance may well be an appropriate figure, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You know, (I think, as you know,) one of the

main reasons why we have introduced legislation to create a mandatory funding mechanism for VA health care, not only do we nickel and dime the health care part of the budget, but it also crowds

out and takes money from other very important projects like the

NCA repair projects that need to be undertaken, as well as additional cemeteries.

You know, it is all in competition with itself under the general

heading of the VA. And then it is competition with other parts of

that VA-HUD appropriation. So you have got all of this competition
25

for scarce funds and much falls out as a result of that, as I know

you know.

And again, I want to thank you for your work. The Independent

Budget again provides us with a blueprint that both our staff and

the members take very seriously. It is very helpful in crafting our

recommendations, not just for the Budget Committee, but for legislation as well.

Mr. JONES. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague, Mr. Evans.

Mr. EVANS. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. I thank you, Mr. Jones, again for your patience and, more importantly, for your good work.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

27

A P P E N D I X
28
29
30
31

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN DAVIS
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103

WRITTEN COMMITTEE QUESTIONS AND THEIR RESPONSES

CHAIRMAN SMITH TO DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
104
105
106

CONGRESSMAN EVANS TO DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121

CHAIRMAN SMITH TO AMVETS

Æ